Talk:Tatmadaw/Archive 1

Archive 1

anonymous user 213.165.224.55

You need to discuss your proposed deletions on this talk page-the info you delete was on this article long before you got here, it is factual, and if you are so determined to make such sweeping changes, why don't you register and sign in? Else I will revert your deletions each and every time they appear. Chris 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And leave the flag smaller-as per Wikipedia Manual of Style. Chris 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Chirs, it maybe factual, but it doesnt belong in Military stub. Perhaps you would like to include this particular information in the main Myanmar article? it is more political then military. This article is purely military related information, please have some common sense? By adding your non-military related facts, you are effectively vandalising the article and stopping others from using it as reference point which is what it was intended for. Surely, if you have done any research on Myanmar Military, you would find very little or no specific information due to the fact that they have been overshadowed by purely political facts and events like the ones you have been posting. Please do not threaten to revert as this would constitute to vandalism and will have to report you to wikipedia admins accordingly.

No single user may determine what does not belong in an article without consensus. There is information in the main article, but where military overlaps with political, as it does here, inclusion is warranted in the article. Your comments are rude and unwelcome, and you have no idea of the meaning of vandalism, else you would not use that term. As the facilitator of the Burma/Myanmar project, I have certainly done my homework, and as a two year _registered_ editor of the Wikipedia, (and since you are an anonymous single-article user with a history starting today) I would like to see just how far your accusations of vandalism go against me. Go for it. Meanwhile as I say I will revert your deletions each and every time they appear. Additions are welcome, deletions without concensus are not. Chris 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia protocol, I am leaving a warning about WP:3RR on your talk page. This has gone on long enough. At your next _unagreed upon_ deletion of material from Military of Myanmar, I will be reporting you for violation of the three revert rule. Chris 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • If you have done your home work, you would know that the information you added does not belong in this article. While, Myanmar military and politics are sensitive issues, we as contributors of Wikipedia must be neutral according to wikipedia policy WP:NPOV in the sense of providing correct and relevant information in the article. Your additions to the article are politically motivated and serves no purpose in a "purely military" related article. This article is about the organisation structure and order of battle for Myanmar Military, it is not about the wealth of a general or what type of villa or house he owns. If you have political scores to settles with Myanmar generals, perhaps you should start a different article. Having seniority and your long time affiliation with Wikipedia does not give you the right to bully or vendalise articles based upon your political orientation or affiliation, especially adding facts that are completely unrelated to the article. Okkar 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If you keep reverting back, I will have to mark the article with nocompliant check against Wikipedia NPOV policy and will also have to request for POVCHECK. What is the point of contributing if you cannot stay neutral and follow wikipedia policy?Okkar 00:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Stating facts as they stand are not POV, and the facts are that the Tatmadaw holds more sway in Burma than does the French military in France or the Australian military in Australia, and for that reason it stands out. Nowhere in the guidelines for this article does it say this article is "about the organisation structure and order of battle for Myanmar Military", it is just as it says, about the Military of Myanmar, hence the name, and all facts are relevant. I have no score to settle, I just avidly dislike those who have no sense of wikietiquette, like yourself. You may even have valid points, but you don't move into someone's house uninvited and start tearing down the curtains while they're away. Thinking you know more than previous editors does not give you the right to remove what they've written without discussion. My political leanings or lack thereof have nothing to do with addition or removal of facts from this article. Your belief that you are the last word on the topic does, and since you have reverted, not even taking the advice of the third party you brought in, you have been reported for violating 3RR. Chris 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please open your eyes and look up on top of this page? it clearly states that "This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Military History Project". No where in the scope and goals of Wikipedia Military History Project states that you should put the details of personal wealth of a general and the photo of his house. No other Military articles (see Brtish Armed Forces - does not contain the wealth of the Queen, nor does it contain the picture of Buckingham Palace) contains such information which are clearly inviolation of not only Wikipedia NPOV policy but also out of the scope from Wikipedia Military History Project. There is no excuse for using Wikipedia as a political tool and using 3RR complaints to get the upper hand in a dispute. You know what you were doing and you just cant accept the fact that you were caught with your hand in the cookies jar. Okkar 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Chris 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no personal attack here. comment on content, and content should be facts and within the scope of article, again neutrality is important here. we must not forget what wikipedia stands for. Thank you. Okkar 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Long time reader, first time contributor - Chris you sound like a dick. I hate the Burmese rulers and they're dodgy as, but the other dude is pretty correct. Leave the political shit out of this article. - Anon

Removing Category

Why was this article removed from Myanmar Category? If you said this project is politically neutral, why were you removing this article from the main Myanmar category? Are you trying deseperately to appease the opposition groups again? so much being politically unbias, you are going a great length have this article hidden from general public. Please control yourself, Wikipedia is not a PR site for NCGUB! Okkar 14:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't aggressively accuse others of being biased without prior knowledge. If you actually took a look at Category:Myanmar, you would find that there are very few articles that exist in that category, because more specific categories have been created, which in the case of "Military of Myanmar" is the category of that same name. For this same reason, articles like "Economy of Myanmar", "Culture of Myanmar", "History of Myanmar", "Politics of Myanmar", "Communication in Myanmar", "Education in Myanmar", just to name a few, appear only in those specific categories and not lets hi the general "Myanmar" category, which is mainly for uncategorised articles and the "Myanmar" article. Next time, before you accuse me of trying to "paddle articles that [have been] sanctioned and blessed by NCGUB [National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma]", you should see how Wikipedia categories work and check out other country cats (e.g. Category:Singapore, Category:Australia) just to name a few). And don't warn me for vandalism without providing a more reasonable explanation. (This is a response to the following 3 posts: 1, 2, 3) --Hintha 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Airforce-flag.jpg

Image:Airforce-flag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tatmadaw-flag.jpg

Image:Tatmadaw-flag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

strange article

I came here mainly expecting to see information on the Myanmar's military's role within the country, both past and present, yet there is nearly none of that. Instead there are only a bunch of minutiae about command structure. Contrast with the much more complete treatment of the article on the Turkish Armed Forces, which discusses both the structure of the military and the wider issues of its role within the country. --Delirium 07:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Army-flag.svg

Image:Army-flag.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for deleting non-informative passages

The article seems overloaded with propaganda-like material that has little content and almost no informational value. The title is "Myanmar Armed Forces", but it seems that a more appropriate title, the way this article is written now, would be "Doctrine and Organizational Structure of Myanmar Military". To fix this, I propose cutting, or greatly simplifying the following passages:

• "Threats to the national unity, territorial integrity and sovereign independence of the Union of Myanmar are the most important security objectives and considered as threats to the security of state." - how about "... to deal with internal and external threats".
• "In the process of formulating Defence Policy and Military Doctrine from a strategic perspective, Tatmadaw has undergone three phases." - how about "The development of Myanmar Military can be divided into three phases".
• "At the 1958 Tatmadaw's annual Commanding Officers (COs) conference, Colonel Kyi Win submitted a report outlining the requirement for new military doctrine and strategy. He stated that 'Tatmadaw did not have a clear strategy to cope with insurgents', even though most of Tatmadaw's commanders were guerrilla fighters during the anti-British and Japanese campaigns during the Second World War, they had very little knowledge of anti-guerrilla or counterinsurgency warfare. Based upon Colonel Kyi Win's report, Tatmadaw begin developing an appropriate military doctrine and strategy to meet the requirements of counterinsurgency warfare." - how about dropping the mention of the report, and just stating the facts?
• "During this phase, external linkage of internal problems and direct external threats were minimised by the foreign policy based on isolation." - What linkage? What "problems"? Is the purpose of this article to paint a picture that the great army strategists are using sophisticated analytical tools to prevent "external elements" from causing "internal problems"? Where is the info (I mean, numbers) about troops, armaments, battles and operations?

All that can be seen here is the nonsense words like the ones above.

• "Beginning in 1961, the Directorate of Military Training took charge the research for national defence planning, military doctrine and strategy for both internal and external threats. This included reviews of international and domestic political situations, studies of the potential sources of conflicts, collection of information for strategic planning and defining the possible routes of foreign invasion.[5]." - all we learn from this passage is that in 1961 a bunch of high-ranking army bureaucrats had a bunch of meetings. What we want to know, is: how much money or other assets they were starting to spend, where the assistance (if any) came from, what weapons were aquired, how many people got enlisted, what military operations were conducted.
• "The new doctrine laid out three potential enemies and they are internal insurgents, historical enemies with roughly an equal strength (i.e. Thailand), and enemies with greater strength." - another example of verbal nonsense: all enemies are divided into small, large, and roughly the same size... Duh! Without naming a single group or country (apart from Thailand to illustrate the point) -- I propose to cut!
• "winning the hearts and minds of people are important parts of anti-guerrilla warfare." - Oh really? Especially after a cyclon like this year's. Note that this clause is not different from the current official US strategy in Iraq.

&

• "The new doctrine of total people's war, and the strategy of anti-guerrilla warfare for counterinsurgency and guerrilla warfare for foreign invasion, were designed to be appropriate for Myanmar. The doctrine flowed from the country's independent and active foreign policy, total people's defence policy, the nature of perceived threats, its geography and the regional environment, the size of its population in comparison with those of its neighbours, the relatively underdeveloped nature of its economy and its historical and political experiences. The doctrine was based upon 'three totalities': population, time and space (du-thone-du) and 'four strengths': manpower, material, time and morale (panama-lay-yat)." - cut. Ask yourself, - this can be said about any country! There is no specifics here at all!
• whether this an be said about any country or not is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS Xenonice: This article is summarising the actual doctrine as contained/written in the documents as information.

• "BSPP laid down directives for "complete annihilation of the insurgents as one of the tasks for national defence and state security" and called for "liquidation of insurgents through the strength of the working people as the immediate objective". This doctrine ensures the role of Tatmadaw at the heart of national policy making." - wishful thinking, and no concrete info! Who are the insurgents? how many? where?
• "The third phase was to face the lower level external threats with a strategy of strategic denial under total people's defence concept. Current military leadership has successfully dealt with 17 major insurgent groups, whose 'return to legal fold' in the past decade has remarkably decreased the internal threats to state security, at least for the short and medium terms, even though threat perception of the possibility of external linkage to internal problems, perceived as being motivated by the continuing human rights violations, religious suppression and ethnic cleansing, remains high." - What 17 major groups? "Successfully"? What success are we talking about here, exactly? >>>> 17 major groups are the 17 rebel groups that surrendered or exchanged arms for peace. The success we are talking about is minimising military operation costs, lives of the people and soldiers etc in dealing with these rebels. By reaching peace agreements, the Armed Forces saves millions of dollars as well as the lives of the soldiers, plus as agreement has reached the rebels no longer carry out sabotage or extortion of money from the villagers.

• "Within the policy, the role of the Tatmadaw was defined as a `modern, strong and highly capable fighting force'. Since the day of independence, the Tatmadaw has been involved in restoring and maintaining internal security and suppressing insurgency. It was with this background that Tatmadaw's "multifaceted" defence policy was formulated and its military doctrine and strategy could be interpreted as defence-in-depth. It was influenced by a number of factors such as history, geography, culture, economy and sense of threats. Tatmadaw has developed an 'active defence' strategy based on guerrilla warfare with limited conventional military capabilities, designed to cope with low intensity conflicts from external and internal foes, which threatens the security of the state. This strategy, revealed in joint services exercises, is built on a system of total people's defence, where the armed forces provide the first line of defence and the training and leadership of the nation in the matter of national defence. It is designed to deter potential aggressors by the knowledge that defeat of Tatmadaw's regular forces in conventional warfare would be followed by persistent guerrilla warfare in the occupied areas by people militias and dispersed regular troops which would eventually wear down the invading forces, both physically and psychologically, and leave it vulnerable to a counter-offensive. If the conventional strategy of strategic denial fails, then the Tatmadaw and its auxiliary forces will follow Mao's strategic concepts of 'strategic defensive', 'strategic stalemate' and 'strategic offensive'. Over the past decade, through a series of modernisation programs, Tatmadaw has developed and invested in better Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence system; real-time intelligence; formidable air defence system; and early warning systems for its 'strategic denial' and 'total people's defence' doctrine." - Cut! This can be said about any military! There are no facts here! Every military in the world invests in better command, control, and every other branch.

Please give your opinion on these proposed cuts. Any discussion is welcome!Xenonice (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Xenonice, it is not true that there are no specifics in what you are asking to be cut, nor is it true that these can be said about any military. For instance, the fact that Burma has decided on the doctrine of "total people's war" is something that is not true for the PRC, USA, UK, France, India, Japan, Australia, Somalia, to name a few, but IS true for Vietnam, Switzerland, Israel, Laos, North Korea, to name a few. It is a way of looking at warfare, and it is interesting and relevant. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to YOU, but it is important in understanding the Burmese armed forces. Still, I do agree that this article seems to be filled with propaganda, and was written (or at least edited) by someone with a Pro-regime stance.

Xenonice you are really biased.

Obvious Bias

This article is clearly biased. It makes little to no mention of the Military's effective control of the entire country, nor does it mention anything of the endemic corruption, inefficiency and brutality of the Myanmar Army. The Burmese Army is NOT the most powerful in SE Asia, far from it. They rely on press-gangs for recruiting, their equipment is either decrepit or non-existant, and their inability to defeat poorly armed and largely unorganized rebels gives a clear indication of their combat effectiveness. If you want a good picture of their effectiveness do a little research on their performance and against the Thai Armed Forces in their various border clashes.

This article needs an immediate and complete re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.205.216 (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't u do it then? Find some reliable sources on the net and edit the article. You have to be neutral tho, and not let ur own personal thoughts effect the article. I will say tho, your statement;

"their inability to defeat poorly armed and largely unorganized rebels gives a clear indication of their combat effectiveness."

is flawed, the United States has one of the biggest militarys in the world with top notch technology, and they have been unsuccessful in defeating rebels in Iraq, Afghanistan & Vietnam. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Ryan4314. The rebels in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam (when we were fighting them), number in the thousands, and are organized, experienced troops. The Mujahideen of Iraq and Afghanistan receive money and training from foreign powers, and have a lot of experience. Compare that to the untrained, unorganized, unfinanced rebels faced by the Tatmadaw. There is a big difference, and one that clearly shows the incompetency of the Burmese Armed Forces. Remember, Johnny and Luther Htoo's God's Army had only 150 men, and yet was able to resist the "might" of the Tatmadaw for years!

I agree with Ryan4314. 60 years fighting the junta is not experience? I beg to differ. Guerrilla warfare is not about fair play - it's about winning. If the Taliban stood toe to toe against the Marines on an open battlefield, they'd probably be dead before they can press the trigger on their RPGs. Same goes for rebels against conventional armies. Another thing is the presence of a border - fighting in the middle of a country and on the border of another is different, since international law comes into play.

It is true that the Burmese army appears quite pathetic in confronting apparently tin-pot rebel groups - but it's also amazing to see the romanticism of your view on rebels. On one hand, there are people saying how rag-tag the gurrillas are and on one side, saying how the rebels will defeat them with their weapons (esp. KIO and UWSA). Still, it is unfair to say they are pathetic because they cannot defeat a group of rebels - it is a) gross generalisation and b)most media reports we get are almost always from rebel sources - we rarely know the other side of the story, and we cannot trust apparently biased news sources to give exact figures. Most information sources concerning Myanmar have special interests behind them - both from the junta and those opposing it. So...every single fact must be taken with a whole lot of salt.

By taking your view, then the Police Departments in the US are a failure because isolated, under-armed and out-numbered miscreants are able to resist the law for some time! I'm not against telling the truth. But I can't stand ideology mongering which most articles concerning Myanmar contain. Uthantofburma (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Article from Irrawaddy which states KNLA is using "Western Special Forces Advisers". [1] 121.7.208.251 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Okkar deletion of Human rights abuses by Burmese military

I don't think there is a need to say human rights abuses are pompous issues regarding the military regime. It even has a separate article itself. Also, you Okkar, has deleted all information about history from Ne Win led coup to SPDC. Why? It is undeniable fact, and I didn't write them myself, I copied most of them from other articles and suitably referenced them with Reliable sources and presented in neutral point about what really is happening and what the medias are saying. If you want to question reliability of such media, like Human rights watch, then you can't do it on Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is transmitter of what others are saying, not a broadcaster of a regime. Soewinhan (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing about alleged human rights abuses. You can add them in a section accordingly and properly, please check other countries military pages and add your section. However, you should not delete various military related information and include political messages instead. This is a pure military article, any politically related issue should be discussed in relevant pages or sections in country article itself. This article is about the Military, not about politics. Please refrain from removing military related information such as unit formation, details of commander in chief 'etc. Please remember, Myanmar Armed Forces is military article, not a political one. POV pushing based on political views are against Wikipedia policy. If you insist on replacing Military related information and politically overtoned messages, I will have no choice but report you as vandal. Okkar (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For most part of Burmese history since Ne Win coup, you can't separate politics and military history. Also, this article is going into unnecessary details. That's why I deleted them. Why you add Ethnic and Army Composition of Tatmadaw in 1948? Why not 1962? 1988? 1989? 2010? If you add all these, it will clearly become a mass. See British Armed Forces for example. Also, do you understand what a vandalism is? You accused many editors of vandalism including me, Chris, Hybernator and others, who are actually well established editors. Think before you say someone as a vandal. See Wikipedia:Civility Also, this article needs history from 1962 to 2011 which you have deleted my editions. Soewinhan (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1948 because that is the independance date, ie the starting point for the armed forces? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. It was the first ever composition of the Army after it was formally transferred by the British. As such, it is entirely important. Dont forget this is Military article, not political - therefore information such as these are necessary. If you want to include the history, keep it to Military nature, dont include your political propaganda paddling junks! Okkar (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility. It is you who is really adding junta propaganda. DSHMRI archieves? What citations? Are you from military? Can you cite books accessible to general public? Soewinhan (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It is Defence Services Historial Museum and Research Institute in Yangon. The same source cited by Andrew Selth in his book "Power without Glory" and by Maung Aung Myoe in his book "Building of Tatmadaw" and by Prof. Desmond Balls of ANU in his various white papers. You can get all these from either Amazon or from your local library. I think you are just accusing me because I am not writing politically contentious things in the article. In case you forget, our objective is to contribute and we are contributing to a Military article and I will only write about things that are of Military nature, and that does not mean I am from Military. Even if I was from Military, that should not be of any issue since everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. This is what Wikipedia is all about. Okkar (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How can you say do not mix military and politics since the military plays center role in current politics. Please write history from 1962-2011. You appear to contend with "good part of military (1948-1962)" and delete every bad part of military (1962-2011).Soewinhan (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can show me in comparison to other Asian country's Military article, where it contain as much political information then I will gladly write up what you wish. If you cannot show an example, then I suggest you leave this article as Military article, just like every other country. Our role as contributors of Wikipedia is not to push our own political views, but to stick to facts relating to the article and focus on the subject of the article. In this case, it is Military, so any Military information is welcome, political and disputeable allegations are not. Try to be objective in contribution rather than blind yourself with loyality to political affiliations that you may have. Dont desecrate the article just because you hate Myanmar Armed Forces and think that your protest to the article is contributing to the revolution in some way. I can assure that it is not. Okkar (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not an argument. "We don't do because they also don't" If so, why Israel is the only country with criticism article? I don't have any political view. It is you who always loyal, edit and safeguard only military article. If you can do, I suggest you please write about history from 1962 to 2011. Soewinhan (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not getting grasp with reality here. The article is about Military. It is a Military article. As such it follows the same structure and information as every other Military article. If you do not have political views, why are you hell bent on including political messages in a Military article? you should ask yourself whether or not you are being rational. You are insisting to include Political issues in a purely Military article. You should sort out your own COI issue first i think. I already made you a resonable request, which is if any other country contain political sections which are disputable, then I will gladly include your suggestions. Okkar (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I told you this is not an argument. Military intervenes politics several times and currently holding power. If you desperately need an example, see Turkish Armed Forces. Can you help me write Politics of Burma without military? Also, this article is not your own. You should stop attacking everyone who edits this article. Again, you never reply why you deleted the section about history from 1962 to 2011? Soewinhan (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have been observing how this article has been developing. It does, in its history section, relate the intervention by military leaders in the ruling of the country, and it does cover the involvement in human rights abuses. In both these cases the article links to other articles that cover the subject in more detail. To repeat the entirety of the issues in two places is redundant. On the whole this article follows the same form as the Turkish Armed Forces one, save that it lacks a section matching Turkish Armed Forces#Role of the military in Turkish politics which is a different case where the military is involved in politics but is not the ruling party. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that Okkar didn't revert my last edit to add human rights section after the discussion above. Continuing this discussion doesn't mean continuing the topic above. I said "Okkar attacks everyone" because he warned User:Hybernator and me of vandalism and accused us of sockpuppetry which he did commit himself. Soewinhan (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Soewinhan, the problem with you is that you are not actually looking at the history of the article and how it have been progressing. You are simply hell bent on including political messages due to your own association outside of wikipedia, which lead you to have COI issue in editing this articles. No one is attacking anyone for editing the article, it is you who is losing temper and accusing me of being a military officer, of which you have nothing to prove. You should clam yourself down, take a cold drink and think rationally about what you are doing. At the end of the day, this is only Wikipedia, its not the end of the world. Okkar (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Okkar - "due to your own association outside of wikipedia"? I have told you too many times, do not accuse others without prior knowledge. You also report User:Hybernator of vandalism while he was actually trying to revert your edit that might defame The Irrawaddy. I didn't accuse you of being a military officer. Because you said " Even if I was from Military, that should not be of any issue since everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia" , I suggest you that you might not be neutral while editing military pages if you were from military. If you believe you are neutral, then just continue your edits.

Well, it's true that I was frustrated. For the first time, I was warned of vandalism, notified at ANI and accused of using socks just because I added some of these human rights abuses. Soewinhan (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that both you and User:Hybernator always online at the same time and using the same sort of writing style. You came on the scene as soon as User:Hybernator started his dispute with me and been on the same complaint pages, providing same info. Are you the same person? I hope I am not the only one who notice this! Okkar (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have evidences, then post an official investigations and see who will be blocked. User Hybernator and I have been editing for four years and one year respectively. None of us heard of socks accusations and vandal warnings at our talk page. Also, please discuss the issue at respective talk pages, I won't reply anymore here.Soewinhan (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Move

Myanmar Armed Forces to Burmese Armed Forces since our central article is currently named Burma, not Myanmar. Soewinhan (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Having read Names of Burma the choice of name could prove controversial. Milhist guidelines say "Root pages for the armed forces of a state are named, if the official name is known, by the official name's English translation (for example, "Australian Defence Force"). If the native language name is most commonly used, this should be kept (for example, "Bundeswehr"). Other national armed forces are only provisionally located at "Military of X", and should be renamed to the translation of the official name when available. Alternately, articles can be renamed if there is consensus over how the armed forces in question are normally referred to in common usage (for example, "United States armed forces")."

Perhaps this is something that needs flagging up for Milhist project members opinion? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The official name of country is Myanmar and it has been accepted by UN and its armed forces should be refer to as such. Okkar (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

GrameLeggett I think Tatmadaw is more commonly used. There are 154,000 Ghits, 715 scholar hits for Tatmadaw.

"Myanmar Armed Forces" has 121,000 Ghits, 93 scholar hits.

"Burmese Armed Forces" has 110,000 Ghits, 229 scholar hits. Perhaps, should we move it to Tatmadaw? Soewinhan (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Google hits has nothing to do with this. You can keep trying and bring in your sockpuppets to support your proposal! Okkar (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel it is time to mention AGF. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Graeme, hard to AGF since User:Soewinhan has an active SPI opened. Okkar (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No real evidences and opened SPI? I hope you would talk back when the case is closed. I also suggest you comment on content rather than on the editor. If not, I have to start ANI topic and prove that admin Natalya was wrong in not blocking you of sockpuppetry and giving you one more chance.Soewinhan (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who opened SPI against you. It was the admins. Feel free to start an ANI topic on me, you are not fooling anybody and I dont really care. I am not obsess with Wikipedia like you, I have better things to do in my life than having petty arguments with you. Okkar (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Myanmar Armed Forces → Tatmadaw — As Military history project recommends "If the native language name is most commonly used, this should be kept (for example, "Bundeswehr") Tatmadaw is more common name than the current one. Myanmar Armed Forces" has 121,000 Ghits, 93 scholar hits and 612 book counts but Tatmadaw has 154,000 Ghits, 715 scholar hits and 10,400 book counts. Perhaps, Burmese Armed Forces is another option because the central article is currently titled as Burma. We should show consistency across all articles. Soewinhan (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tatmadaw already redirects to Myanmar Armed Forces, since the country name issue is a contentious issue, I propose to leave the article as it is until an agreement can be reached on the main country article. Wikipedia is not a place to decide what a country's armed forces should be called. United Nations and various other bodies refer to the armed forces of myanmar officially as Myanmar Armed Force. This move request was politically motivated by a user with COI and SPI issues. Okkar (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Many arguments here and all invalid. Yes, there's a redirect, and after the move there'll be another one the other way. Leaving the article as it is for a short time would be an option if progress were being made towards consensus elsewhere, but there's no evidence of that. The discussion here is simply about what the article should be called, and yes this is the place for that. We don't necessarily follow UN or other official usage for article names, see WP:AT and WP:official names. The motivation of other contributors is relevant in some circumstances, but when their valid arguments are unanswered and no valid opposing arguments are given then raising it amounts to a personal attack (and please read the policy page before deciding it doesn't, particularly the nutshell summary). Vote below. Andrewa (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever dude! You can call the article AndrewaArmy for all i care! Okkar (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support move The main English-language works on this subject use 'Tatmadaw'. I've got no comments about any wider disputes about the naming of Burmese institutions, but it seems a pretty clear choice for this particular article (and I think that I've seen pro-democracy activists refer to the 'Tatmadaw'). Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support move to Tatmadaw. Figures above seem undisputed and are surprising to me but clearly support the move. Andrewa (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Google stats are misleading because it counts pages of every language, not just English! Use English! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Untitled

I propose editing the first sentance to say "... of Myanmar, also known as Burma.." rather than "..of Burma, also known as Myanmar. the structure of the sentance is wrong, as the official name is Myanmar, and it is also know by it's old name. not the other way around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.109.56 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Tatmadaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029205754/http://www.president-office.gov.mm/en/briefing-room/orders/2012/09/07/id-637 to http://www.president-office.gov.mm/en/briefing-room/orders/2012/09/07/id-637
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141028154639/http://www.janes.com/article/32436/myanmar-declares-usd2-4-billion-defence-budget-for-2014 to http://www.janes.com/article/32436/myanmar-declares-usd2-4-billion-defence-budget-for-2014
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141028154639/http://www.janes.com/article/32436/myanmar-declares-usd2-4-billion-defence-budget-for-2014 to http://www.janes.com/article/32436/myanmar-declares-usd2-4-billion-defence-budget-for-2014
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141028185816/http://www.mizzimaburmese.com/2013-10-20-16-16-07/2013-11-01-01-48-27/item/31153-2014-10-28-03-38-37 to http://www.mizzimaburmese.com/2013-10-20-16-16-07/2013-11-01-01-48-27/item/31153-2014-10-28-03-38-37
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141204151609/http://www.shanland.org/HR/Publication/LtoR/license_to_rape.htm to http://www.shanland.org/HR/Publication/LtoR/license_to_rape.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110427171631/http://www.refintl.org/content/publication/detail/3023/ to http://www.refintl.org/content/publication/detail/3023/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110501105138/http://www.karenhumanrightsgroup.org/photoreports/2008photos/gallery2008/section5.html to http://www.karenhumanrightsgroup.org/photoreports/2008photos/gallery2008/section5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Doing the Directorate of Defense Industries

I got plans to do this as a separate article. Ominae (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Final paragraph of introduction is outdated and misrepresentative of the present situation. Please remove!

I do not have edit access, but the final sentence of the introduction to this article is, in my opinion, false, and does not reflect the current situation in Myanmar at all:

"Nevertheless, a 2014 survey conducted by the American International Republican Institute across all Myanmar demographics shows military is the most favorable institution, with 84% of respondents saying either "very favorable" or "favorable" ahead of other institutions such as media, government and Burmese opposition."

Can someone with edit access remove it? It is also simply outdated. I would argue that study is likely biased by self censorship, which is widespread in Myanmar. The majority of the country that is in the streets right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:92C0:320B:2461:1943:8763:B61A (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It was probably true back then. Halskw (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed from the introduction. Without additional context, referring to a 7-year-old survey to suggest current opinion of the Tatmadaw is potentially deeply misleading. First, the survey precedes the Tatmadaw's 2016 crackdown in Rakhine state in which 700,000+ Rohingya have been driven from their homes. Second, the study precedes the 2015 general election. This was the first openly contested general election in which the 'Burmese opposition' (i.e. the National League for Democracy) was actually allowed to compete. This is significant because in both 2015 and 2020 general elections, the pro-military party (the Union Solidarity and Development Party) took decisive electoral losses. In 2015 they lost hundreds of seats in both the House of Representatives and the House of Nationalities, and received less than one-third of the national vote share. While these election results can be interpreted in possibly many ways, they suggest a very different picture than what is currently presented in the introduction. Finally, and more recently, over the five weeks there have been widespread protests throughout the country against military rule, and these protests have continued despite escalating and in some cases shocking violence by committed by military and police against protestors. Therefore I suggest that possibly adding section about views of the military in post-independence Burma would be appropriate. mh 2021-03-09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.41.134.95 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well it seems sourced good, and articles here should follow WP:NPOV policies and we don't decide what is still relevant or not or what is recent etc. Nubia86 (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, content that is outdated (or even just one survey) should not be given so much WP:WEIGHT in the lead. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So we just remove it even if sourced and a year is written. Indeed it can be significant outside lurk inside some internal stuff, especially if we take to it should be some NPOV style if possible somehow. Nubia86 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: well, after some thinking and checking this article, yeap, it can go out. Nubia86 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)